Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Call me old fashioned and maybe chauvanistic, but there is something to be said about “sending the boys off to war” and “When JOHNNY Comes Marching Home” that has a sense of logic to it.I am not by any means putting down the women who have served honorably and with distinction, but I believe the fewer distractions, regulations, and reasons that soldiers have to focus on other than training and combat are valid reasons for men only military.Same with homosexuals. Many have served honorably and gone above and beyond, but there was a reason that the rule was put into place long before this recent appeal. Like Patrick said, living in oblivion has its merits.Let me reitterate that I do believe homosexuals and women can and do serve with great valor and distinction. I just personally feel our well oild machine would run a tad smoother without the distractions both cause.My two cents...
Yeah, I took it with a grain of salt…. Nice fellow, but he was certainly no stranger to tales of yore and used such eloquent New York vernacular that left me laughing. 😉In his defense he has been going there since he was a boy and he was fairly old, so, who knows for sure...
Stay out of the GS sector when you retire then! 😀I have friends who are Army chaplains and have told me of the double standards placed on them yet those leading any other faith is allowed to conduct services in the manner their religion dictates, without backlash. And any complaining done by the Christians about it will get you into deep kimchi.It is pretty sad. The Army is caving along with the rest of the government. Islam is ROFLTBO! >:(
Shiloh is on my short list for sure…Not sure how factual this is, but when I was at Antietam I was talking to an older fellow from Long Island who makes regular pilgramages to the battlefield. He said that some years ago they found remains along the Sunken Road. He said he was walking it when he was younger and found part of a hand sticking up where some land had washed away. Took it with a grain of salt, but was an interesting story that made walking up Bloody Lane a bit more surreal.
We've already had briefings and the obligitory classes (death by powerpoint) ad nauseum on this subject as a US Army civilian. I agree with you completely and think it is sad that our viewpoint is considered hatred and their viewpoint is is not considered coersion. We can't force our will on them but they can on us. Hypocritical.
Have you been to Perryville, Kentucky? That's the only site I've been to.
I have not been to that... would you reccommend it?
I almost opted to go to Gettysburg… it was only an hour and 30 minuntes away from where we were staying in Maryland, but to be honest I really had no desire to got here. I have heard all the stories of how awesome it is, but to me Gettysburg has been… whats the word I want to used… not really commercialized but has become the poster child for the Civil War that I usually can't stand to hear another story about it or how important it was.It was important, but from a truly historical standpoint I think it had no greater impact than First Manassas, Antietam or Vicksburg. THose three in particular had a HUGE impact on the chain of events during the war, I think more so than Gettysburg...Yeah, I'd like to see it, but it's not on my priority list... Antietam was incredible. I can't wait to go back so I can go over it with a fine toothed comb. Shiloh and Vicksburg will be on the list soon as well. My current goal is to see every major battle site in Missouri and as many of the smaller, skirmish sites in Missouri, document my travels to all and then write something about the whole of them sometime in the future.
It is important because look at how long this man served our country… over 40 years… that is a LONG time to work.. especially in a rpofession such as the military.Hats off to the SGM on his retirement. Job well done...
Agreed… too many features that wouldn't change are different… look at the ears.. they are not the same…the shape of the nose and the brow… all totally different… even making a facial expressions wouldn't change these as much as they are changed…The picture is someone else...
They said that some where ther with their hands clasped in prayer… does that mean they were dropped through alive??
Quite possibly… depends on which side of the fence you're on. I honestly see both sides as having a legitimate beef with the other...The South claims that just like anything else they entered into an association that initially gave them dominion over their own states with some assistance from the new Federal gov't. Then they went and changed it (AoC) and enacted exactly what you stated - a bully gov't forcing it's will on those who would say "that isn't what we signed up for."The North on the other hand did get all the southern states to sign the Constitution... so the South really could not complain that they were forced into that. They could have left prior to that, but did not and signed a document that sealed them to the Union for the duration. The gov't was not going to let these states go. It would weaken the Union, make the Constitution a joke and would take away any legitimacy that the gov't would ever have.The states before the Civil War were no different before or after the war. That is in regards to their rights and status. The only time they had a different role was prior to the Constitution. After that, their roles and rights were signed, sealed and delivered.So they were certainly bullied, but bullied under the auspices of a contract they willfully and purposefully signed and entered into...Like I said, I see both sides and think it is a debate that will never get resolved...
Nope, because you had all the abolitionists stirring things up more than you had southerners stirring things. Leave slavery as is and the Kansas Red-Legs and Jayhawkers move into Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, etc. and the whole thing explodes anyway. I have had the discussion about avoidance of war, but in the case of the American Civil War I think nothing was going to stop that war from happening. It started all the way back with the founding fathers, almost came to head during Andrew Jackson's watch with "the mouth of the South" John C. Calhoun and secession. The two cultures were different in every way, culturally, economically, socially, religiously. The lives lost were unfortunately inevitable. It was a cleansing period and was needed to give birth to the "United" States.
